Brent: Sadly, not bullshit.
Lead bans are gleefully considered everytime another lefty is elected to the White House (at my EPA job last year, it was all the rage to discuss its "wonderful" potential in the regional office here). On the State level, Minnesota has had several attempts to do this in the last few years, many states (including Colorado) are now "considering" it, and California has already done so. For somebody like me, who owns and shoots older (& even Damascus-barreled) double guns, it would be very hard to continue that practice. The economics of replacing lead would effectively end most sport hunting and target shooting and the proponents know this all-to-well. In the NIOSH Manuel (the handbook used by industrial hygienists for endangerment assessments and the process of choosing how an environmental cleanup will progress, especially concerning PPE for the workers involved) lead is addressed much like all the other contaminants of concern. All the naturally-occurring & synthetic industrial chemical elements are addressed there, including the many speciations (or forms) of lead (I would note that many [if not most] of the other "elements" listed are far-more toxic to human health and the environment) but only lead is so-politically charged and then so deeply-focused upon by the regulators, and the reasons for that are patently obvious to anybody that is paying attention.
Last edited by Lloyd3; 07/28/24 11:34 AM.
